Template:Did you know nominations/Chad Wolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Chad Wolf

Chad F. Wolf in 2017
Chad F. Wolf in 2017
  • ... that Chad Wolf (pictured) stated that, as DHS Chief of Staff during the Trump family separation policy, his function was to provide information to the Secretary and not to determine whether it was the right or wrong policy? Source: [1]

Converted from a redirect by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

  • Overall, looks good -- relatively minor issues below (plus QPQ needed). QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Issues
  • QPQ still needed
  • Copyvio suggests first paragraph under "Education & Early Career" section is someone else's wording. Revise to fix this issue.
  • Should have citations in the first & second paragraph before Table of Contents.
  • Good aspects
  • Article increased 5x on Oct 21 & submitted for review Oct 27, meeting "new" definition at time of submission.
  • Photo from Commons
  • Hook of general interest.
  • Hook supported by info in the Chad Wolf page & by the citation.
  • Article tone is neutral.

@QuakerSquirrel: Thanks for the review. The QPQ has been provided. Lead sections generally do not require citations as they repeat statements elsewhere in the article, per MOS:LEADCITE. Could you tell me specifically what part of that paragraph you want to be reworded? Earwig is only showing quotes and job titles that match. Also, I have a reworded hook that is more up to date and have updated the photo. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Antony-22: It looks like it was edited several times after I reviewed, so perhaps one of those took care of the phrases Earwig was picking up. I agree all is good now. Thanks for the info about the lead section. I'm relatively new to active editing & didn't know that.

Article looks good to go to me. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)